It was predictable. Christopher Dorner, the murdering Black cop, is being handled by the media this way: 1. His liberalism is pretty much ignored. 2. Since he's Black, the media are asking the question — "Did his victims deserve it?" 3. Since he's liberal, and Black, the media seem astounded that he's murdering people, since Blacks and liberals tend to be so non-violent. (Yes, sarcasm.)
Kevin MacDonald has been thinking about Dorner, and writes:
We in Southern California can’t turn on the TV without seeing coverage of the Christopher Dorner crime rampage. Make no mistake about it, this is no ordinary crime spree. Dorner is a Black man with extensive military experience who was fired from the Los Angeles Police Department when a review board found that he had manufactured a story that a White female officer had kicked a schizophrenic man with severe dementia as was being taken into custody. In his manifesto, Dorner paints a picture of corruption and cronyism that led to his being fired. On the other hand, the woman whom he accused was exonerated and eventually promoted; in the LATimes account she paints a picture of Dorner as incompetent.
One might think that Dorner is yet another Black man who feels entitled to murder because of past White racial oppression (see Jared Taylor’s video). However, it’s more complicated than that. It’s true that he has a sense of racial victimization. Incidents where he was called “nigger’ or simply heard the word being used are etched in his brain. After being called “nigger” in the first grade (where Blacks were “less than 1%”), he “made a life decision that i will not tolerate racial derogatory terms spoken to me.” And he resents racially derogatory names for President Obama and his wife.
But his first two murder victims were the (Asian) daughter of the lawyer who defended him in the hearing and her (Black) fiance. (Dorner claims the lawyer, a former police officer, colluded with the LAPD.) (Read the rest HERE.)